I have been studying the origins issue for 22 years, and I have been debating the origins issue with literally hundreds of Darwinists for a decade. Here’s a brief report:
I have to admit that when I first started debating the origins issue I did so with some trepidation. After all, there are a lot of highly educated, credentialed, intelligent professionals who say they believe the Darwinian narrative. To tell the truth, when I first started debating origins, I assumed not only that there was a very good chance that I was on the wrong side of the debate, but also that one or more of those highly educated, credentialed, intelligent professionals would come along and drop a science bomb on me that would destroy my naïve belief in ID.
UD has 47,782 registered users. Some of those are duplicates, but it is safe to assume that over 40,000 unique individuals have commented on this site. And I think it is safe to assume also that at least one of those 40,000 individuals is the highly educated, credentialed, intelligent professional who, if they could, would drop a science bomb on me that would destroy my naïve belief in ID.
Ten years later, 40,000 commenters later. No bomb. I’m beginning to think that maybe there isn’t a bomb. Maybe my confidence in ID is not naïve after all. And maybe WJM is right when he condenses the two sides down to:
ID = proposing and employing methodologies for actually doing the math and attempting to find out if natural law + chance is capable of generating new, functional proteins.
Darwinism = blindly assuming that natural law + chance can and did generate all sets of functional proteins because the alternative is ideologically intolerable, and predicating virtually all of their evolutionary storytelling on that baseless assumption.